אלה תולדות נח נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדרתיו

These are the offspring of Noaĉ; Noaĉ [was] a righteous man, wholesome in his generations

Within a single sentence, the text presents a theological paradox: איש צדיק is an absolute statement; it defines his core essence as objectively righteous, independent of any external metric. Yet, it is immediately followed by תמים היה בדרתיו – a relativistic qualifier measuring his completeness specifically against the backdrop of his era. Furthermore, the text uses the plural דרתיו his generations and immediately follows this declaration by announcing the birth of his three sons – an event the Torah had already recorded just ten verses prior at the conclusion of the previous chapter.

These textual anomalies serve as the foundation for a Rabbinic debate regarding the nature of righteousness itself, exploring whether true sanctity is achieved by preserving one’s purity or by risking it to elevate others.

Table of Contents

Hermetical Righteousness

To understand the absolute nature of איש צדיק alongside the relative nature of תמים, one must look at the mechanics of Noaĉ’s survival. The antediluvian world was not merely sinful; it was entirely corrupted, a realm of absolute filth and violent theft (חמס).

To remain תמים complete, whole, and unblemished in an environment of total degradation, a person faces a severe dilemma. To engage with a corrupt generation is to step into the mud. Even if one’s intention is to clean the environment, the act of wrestling with the filth inevitably covers the wrestler in grime. As established in the laws of כלים, engaging with the forces of strife validates their existence and renders one susceptible to impurity.

Noaĉ’s solution was absolute disengagement. He achieved the status of תמים by building an impenetrable wall around himself. His righteousness was a fortress.

This isolation was not a temporary tactic; it was his defining methodology. The plural “generations” indicates that Noah lived through both the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion (the Tower of Bavel). In both eras of catastrophic moral failure, Noaĉ survived as an איש צדיק by remaining completely aloof, refusing to allow the turbulence of either era to encroach upon his personal completeness. But his perfection was strictly בדרתיו – achieved by insulating himself from the generations he lived amongst.

The Rabbinic Indictment

The Gemara[i] famously splits on how to interpret this relativistic phrasing. One perspective views it to his credit: if Noaĉ could maintain his perfection in a world of absolute darkness, imagine how much brighter he would have shone in a generation of light.

The detractors, however, read it as an indictment. The Midrash specifies this critique with a devastating comparison: Had Noaĉ lived in the generation of Avraham, the generation of Moshe, or the generation of Dovid, he would not have been considered anything special.

Why are these specific generations listed as comparisons?

Avraham’s generation was at least equally amoral, and arguably worse so[1]. If not for Avraham, the Mishna[ii] implies the result of the ten (10) generations of increasingly angering G-d would have resulted in the same fate as that of the flood – total annihilation. However, Avraham was different; as the verse[iii] states אחד היה אברהם – he completely stood opposite the entire world, and successfully reintroduced monotheism into the world.

Moshe’s generation was also arguably a terrible generation. The world was subjugated to Pharaoh where magic was as prevalent as straw in the marketplace selling straw[iv]. That generation was the first generation to actively engage in a genocidal campaign against the Israelites. And even amongst the righteous Jews who left Egypt – they were the first generation to test G-d, ten (10) times to the point where G-d eradicated them in the wilderness rather than allowing them to enter the land of Israel and begin the history of the Jewish people in Israel.

Dovid’s generation was hardly peaceful either. With the rampant Philistines that Dovid’s spent his life fighting. The drama-filled tragedies and rebellions within his own house. And the tragic ending of the first king of the Jewish people who descended into madness and eventual suicide.

Would Noaĉ have been successful in his efforts to stop the evil of his generation?

Seemingly, the answer to this question is no. On the verse[v] בעצם היום הזה בא נח the Midrash[vi] teaches us that the people of Noaĉ’s generation, when they saw the flood starting, stated they would come and smash the Ark rather than allowing Noaĉ to survive. They didn’t even outwardly pretend to do Teshuva (as the people of Ninvé did). Their entire focus was on evil.

If ten (10) generations of righteous individuals, including[2] three of the Seven (7) Shepherds[vii] אדם, שת, מתושלח – not to mention Noaĉ, and Shem themselves, or Ĉanoĉ who according to some opinions[viii] became an angel – how can we hold Noaĉ responsible. And if the argument is that Noaĉ should have engaged in a request to spare them, as Avraham did for the people of S’dom, and Moshe did for the sinners of the Golden Calf, and Dovid did when faced with his various challenges – how is a failure in doing so a reflection of the concept of תמים – which is defined relativisticly and not a reflection of איש צדיק – which remains an absolute statement.

Many Waters

To answer these questions, the Zohar[ix] provides us with the following teaching:

Rabbi Yehuda[3] opened on the verse[x]

המה מי מריבה אשר רבו בני ישראל את ה’ ויקדש בם

These are the Waters of Strife which the Jewish People strove against G-d, and he [] was sanctified thereby.

Was this the only place the Jews strove with G-d [weren’t there in total ten (10) tests]? Why is this one called מריבה. Rather, this [the striking of the Well of Miriam instead of speaking to it] is that which provides strength to evil. As there are; Sweet Waters and Bitter Waters, Clear Waters and Filthy Waters, Peaceful Waters and Turbulent Waters. And from these Waters of Strife, with which the Jewish people strove with G-d, was drawn [sustenance] to those who do not need it[4] (evil) and with which they became defiled – as derived from the phrase ויקדש בם.

On this, Rabbi Levi Yitzĉok Schneerson (Reb Levik) commented:

הג’ לשונות: מתיקין, צלילן, שלם, לנגד חג”ת הג’ קוין – כי צלילן דהיינו נקיים הוא מצד קו השמאל גבורה.

The three (3) terms: Sweet, Clear, Peace correspond to [the attributes of] Ĉesed, Gevurah, Tifferes; the three (3) Lines – because “Clear” which is “Clean” is from the side of the Left Line, Gevurah.

As known from the circumstances of extreme suffering in which these words were written, Reb Levik could not write at length what he intended, therefore we have to analyze what he wrote to try to understand this properly. In examining his commentary the following questions seem obvious:

Rabbi Yehuda notes that the seeming opposite of Sweet Waters is Bitter Waters. Normally, we would ascribe the attribute of Gevurah to the Bitter Waters, especially as it stands opposite Sweet Waters, which naturally corresponds to Ĉesed. Why does Reb Levik instead define Clear Waters as representative of Gevurah.
What is the difference between צלול and נקי? The term צלול refers to the transparency of the liquid. While נקי refers to its state of cleanliness – whether foreign materials are present or not. How does redefining צלול as נקי help us understand the association of this type of Water to the Side of Left / Gevurah?
What is the lesson Reb Levik is providing us by defining the three (3) categories of Waters along the lines of the three (3) Lines – Ĉesed, Gevurah and Tifferes?

Deadly Strife

Reb Levik is analyzing the context of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement as well as its applicability to the Parsha and the lessons to be derived in our daily lives. In this context, we have to first ask the fundamental question addressed by Rabbi Yehuda:

Why was this particular test different than the others? This is not the first time the Jewish people strove with G-d. This isn’t even the first time Moshe strove with G-d. During his very first conversation, Moshe refuses point blank to do what G-d asks him to do. Instead, Moshe politely says[xi], send someone else – שלח נא ביד תשלח. And yet here, Moshe strikes the rock with his staff – a miracle is performed and water gushes forth for the Jewish people – but Moshe and Aharon [who was just a bystander] is sentenced to death.

The key to Rabbi Yehuda’s answer is the phrase Water’s of Strife. He notes that there is a corresponding anti-particle to each of the three (3) types of Waters; Sweet vs Bitter, Clear (Clean) vs Dirty, Peaceful vs Turbulent. Thus, Strife is defined not as failing to perform that which is required, but in standing in opposition to. By Striving with G-d / Standing in Opposition to what G-d wanted, Moshe redirected the flow of G-dliness to evil and thus was sentenced to death. Not as a punishment, but יען as a direct consequence.

But why should one who stood against the Rebellious Ones (שמעו נא המורים) be tarred with the same rebelliousness that the people had demonstrated?

When Moshe was commanded to speak to the rock, he was being asked to calm troubles waters, to speak to the rock and convince it to produce a miracle in obedience to G-d’s will. In effect, he was asked to nullify the opposition through words, rendering the physical threat (the lack of water) an illusion. By picking up the staff and striking the rock, he transformed his instrument of authority into a functional weapon of war (like a תריס). He met strife with physical force, thereby validating their rebellion.

Deadly Shielding

This answer can be understood by learning the Mishna [xii] regarding the types of Shields that may or may not be susceptible to טומאה. The Mishna notes that there are three (3) types of shields:

תריס הכפוף – The Bent Shield
שמשחקין בו בקנפון – The Sporting Shield
דיצת הערביין – The Arabian Theatrical [Shield]

The Mishna explains that each shield can be susceptible to increasing levels of Tum’ah depending on the functionality of the shield.

Spiritually, as noted in the אור נערב, a מגן – Shield is representative of מלכות. The Sefira of מלכות is the one that descends into the world, the place where the possibility of evil exists. Accordingly, a shield is required from the holiness contained so that it does not get corrupted and provide life to evil itself. However, since a shield is now being used as a weapon to combat evil, it itself can become susceptible to Tum’ah due to its exposure to evil. In this exposure, there are three (3) degrees:

The surrounding shield, completely encompassing on 3 sides = fully engaged, susceptible to severe Tum’ah
The sporting shield, only there to test one’s strength = partially engaged, susceptible only to less severe Tum’ah
The toy shield, which provides no functionality = no engaged, and therefore Tahor

But why should the shield, whose purpose and functionality is to protect against evil, become susceptible at all to Tum’ah? The answer to this is in understanding the nature of evil.

Technically, evil is the absence of something. Not a positive anything but negative countering of good. Its entire existence depends on the nature of its relationship to light and good. Giving credence to evil is to validate this premise of its ability to counter good. Even when one seeks to counter it, that in itself validates evils existence, which drags the person into the mire. Similar to shields – the presence of the shield in itself is reprehensible, because it requires a mindset assuming that there is evil in the world which one needs to be protected from, and thus the shield is susceptible to Tum’ah.

Incidentally, this helps us explain another Mishna[xiii]: The Mishna states one may not leave while transporting weapons on Shabbos. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees[5] explaining that such things are merely ornamental. The sages further disagree stating that weapons are reprehensible, since, based on the verse[xiv] וכתתו חרבותם לאתים וחניתותיהם למזמרות, לא ישא גוי אל גוי חרב ולא ילמדו עוד מלחמה – and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not raise a sword against another nation, and they shall no longer study war.

Since Shabbos, is reflective of the era of Moshiaĉ, when weapons will not just be ornaments, but shall be actively changed into useful implements of agriculture and commerce – by refusing to accept this reality as the truth, one persists in treating weapons as if they were weapons – even ornamental ones. This is reprehensible, as it negates the reality of the era of Moshiaĉ.

Bitter Rebellion

Unlike the other tests conducted by the Jewish people in the wilderness, this one contained an aspect of Rebellion which Moshe himself acknowledged and sought to counter. As Rashi notes, when Moshe began searching for the boulder which housed the Well of Miriam, the scoffers began mocking Moshe, ‘what difference does it make which rock is used.’

Moshe countered that with שמעו נא המרים המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים – their exact blasphemy, that the water needed to come out of a particular rock, stands counter to their own logic – water doesn’t come from any rocks. Therefore, if water came from a rock, that is a G-dly miracle.

However, unlike every other time when Moshe strove with G-d privately [on behalf of the people], this time Moshe strove against the scoffers. And thus, he himself acknowledged their position as a force he needed to counter, in effect validating their position as scoffers. As he directed his statement to evil, so was evil strengthened – and the function of evil is death.

This is why these waters specifically were named מי מריבה – Waters of Strife, because the miracle of the Water issuing forth from the rock became a source for strife against G-d.

Personalized Antidotes

What then is the antidote? If countering evil results in becoming besmirched, what should one do? Being a pacifist certainly will not work.[6] Rabbi Yehuda provides us with the answer.

Sweet Water counters Bitter (the corruption of life).

Bitter is the corruption of the normally lifegiving (חסד) water. When the world produces bitter water, water that is not fit for human construction, one cannot counter this by building a dam. To counter the bitter waters, we provide sweet waters – we overwhelm the bitterness with acts of goodness and kindness.

Clear Water counters Filthy (the corruption of truth).

Gevurah is the process of filtering; filtering light to the deserving and filtering out evil from the good. When the world produces contaminates in the clean (גבורה) water, one cannot counter this by arguing with the mud. As we are taught by Reb Levik, it is not enough that the water must have the appearance of clean water (צלול) it must actually be purified and clean in reality (נקיים). The impurities must be filtered out producing only clean water.

Peaceful Water counters Turbulence (the corruption of harmony).

Turbulence is the result of various components within a single body acting in disharmony and fighting against each other. Water against rocks in the river, a plane fighting the air it flies on. When the world produces chaos, one cannot counter this by isolating oneself in a peaceful bubble. Doing so simply creates another point of friction and increases the turbulence. Instead שלם peace is required – the peace of harmony (תפארת) in which the disparate parts are brought together to serve a single purpose, with the strengths of each utilized to advantage for the whole [and for their own personal benefit as well].

Shields Up

How does these antidotes apply to the Shield of the Soul?

We can say that each shield corresponds to a particular service – in reverse order: תורה corresponding to Peaceful Waters, עבודה corresponding to Clear / Clean waters as we say in the verse שפחי כמים לבך – pour out your heart [to G-d], and גמילת חסדים corresponding to Sweet Waters.

This explains the sages indictment of Noaĉ. By refusing to engage in countering the Turbulence of his generations, he may have built a completely impervious ark that can float above the turbulent waters, but he failed to counter the evil. And the sages point to three (3) generations / individuals in which the paragon of each of these modes of service existed who successfully stood against the entire evil of their generations.

Avraham, the paragon of kindness.

Avraham’s חסד (the Side of Right) actively sought to counter the inhospitality of his generation. He himself had to leave his birth place אור כשדים due to Nimrod’s intolerance, and he actively countered the practices of S’dom through radical hospitality.

Dovid, the composer of Tehillim – the foundation of prayer.

Although Dovid was required to engage in battle, to the point where G-d prohibited him from building the Base Hamikdash due to his excess גבורה – the ‘blood on his hands’ (the Side of Left). Nevertheless, he did so because he had to – spending his efforts, heart and soul in writing Tehillim and ruling the people.

Moshe, the giver of the Torah.

Moshe embodies Torah and תפארת (Center Line). He brought the harmony (תלמידי חכמים מרבים שלום בעולם) to a chaotic world by fusing the upper and lower realms at Sinai.

The Bubble of the Ark

Noaĉ was a completely righteous man, but his righteousness was a passive fort. He successfully avoided the Waters of Strife, but he failed to sweeten them, filter them, or calm them. The hidden lesson of the Midrash is that the ultimate purpose of the soul is not to remain unblemished by escaping the darkness, but to enter the wasteland and actively transform the bitter into the sweet.

And therefore… יען

To fight evil properly: live.

When evil seeks to embitter – increase in goodness and kindness.

When evil seeks to dirty – increase in sanctity and תפילה.

When evil seeks turbulence – increase in peace and Torah.

[1] Avram lived in אור כשדים and חרן (חרון אף של עולם) in the times of נמרוד, called thus because he was the first to openly declare his rebellion against G-d, and he “invited” others to do the same. His evil stupidity was so unique that his name ‘Nimrod’ remains a catch phrase to this day.

[2] See Gem Sukkah 52b

[3] (perhaps representative of מלכות)

[4] Evil is considered to ‘not need sustenance’ since [See גן נעול (Abulafia) 15] רשעים אפילו בחייהם קרואים מתים – evil people are called ‘the Dead’ even while alive. The Dead do not need sustenance.

[5] Rabbi Eliezer was [presumably] the same Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus who completely abandoned the wealth of his family and their attachment to the physical world in order to study Torah. Because of that, his father disowned him, and for a time he had to subsist on eating dirt disdaining to even beg for food. For such a person, evil simply does not exist as a force that requires countering. Therefore, for Rabbi Eliezer, weapons are simply ornaments.

[6] To be clear, evil must be fought when necessary. Some types of evil cannot be rectified and must be removed from the world. And the practicality of protecting the innocent is a Torah imperative as it says in the verse [Vayikra 19:16] לא תעמד על דם רעך. However, combat against evil need not be personal. Instead, one must act with joy at fulfilling G-d’s command in destroying evil. Accordingly, when Shimon and Levi destroyed the city of Sh’ĉem, Yaakov reproached them for ‘muddying the water’ עכרתם אותי. However, their response הכזונה יעשה את אחותינו was irrefutable. Later, Yaakov did not disagree with their actions but cursed the anger in which it had been performed ארור אפם כי עז. The should have acted surgically.

[i] Gem. Sanhedrin 108a

[ii] Pirkay Avos 5:2

[iii] Yeĉezkel 33:24 (Yeshaya has a variant of this as well in 51:2)

[iv] See Gem. Menaĉos 85a

[v] Beraishis 7:13

[vi] See Rashi on Beraishis 7:13 and Midrash Rabba 32:8

[vii] Miĉa 5:4

[viii] See Targum Yonason on Beraishis 5:24

[ix] Zohar Noaĉ 66a (Chapter 19)

[x] Bamidbar 20:13

[xi] Shemos 4:13

[xii] Mishna כלים 24:1

[xiii] Mishna Shabbos 6:4

[xiv] Yeshayahu 2:4